What would you consider to be the most "complete" source in the LDS cannon?

[JAHS]

The fulness of the gospel that Christ brought to us is described by Jesus Himself in the Book of Mormon:

“Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.” 

The Savior then reviewed for the Nephites the facts of the Atonement, including the need to repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. (See 3 Ne. 27:13-22.) This then is Christ's own definition of the core Gospel. It is the "good news" that He came to tell everyone about. It is all recorded in the Book of Mormon; therefore the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the core gospel of Jesus Christ up to that point in time.

Shortly before Christ was crucified He told His apostles;

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

He never got a chance to tell them these "many things" before He died. Therefore the Bible does not contain all the teachings that Christ wanted us to know. 
The Lord has said that His word comes to man "precept upon precept; line upon line; here a little, and there a little; (Isaiah 28:13), and that He "will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7) Therefore, we know that He doesn't give His children everything all at once, but a little at a time when we are ready to "bear them" (John 16:12). And He will reveal them through His prophets. Therefore there is no one complete cannon because we have an open cannon that is continuously being added to. 

[snowflake]

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I think several posters have said as much, but you are slightly confounding terms here. I consider the Bible to be the most "complete" version of the scriptures. It can stand alone. It contains the fulness of the gospel, but imho estimation has been partially misinterpreted - including by the Church. The Book of Mormon does contain the fulness of the gospel, but really cannot stand alone. It does not really address what sin is too much. It is a supplementary scripture, which expounds upon biblical prophecies and other scriptural concepts. IMHO it too has been misinterpreted somewhat by the Church. 

I will echo Robert here. I have never said the Bible is "corrupt" - at least not the KJV. However, I have asserted and continue to assert that the KJV has some scribal errors, omissions, and in some ways is not a great translation of the Hebrew. It does better in the Greek translation department. Do I believe there are corrupt Bibles as the BoM states? Yes. The KJV is one of the better versions, and is not corrupted in its teachings. I imagine the Lord believed the JST was complete enough, as he allowed JS to die. I largely consider it to be inspired interpretation rather than a new version anyway. I believe the Church has taken the right tack in including it for study/explanatory purposes.

 

The Book of Abraham is inspired scripture, although we largely do not understand its translation process. One thing is for sure - its translation is not based upon 3rd century BC Egyptian.

If you are speaking of the Book of Commandments - it was superceded by D & C with complete knowledge of JS. If you are referring to the lectures on faith - imho they clearly are not dictation from the Lord like D&C. I don't consider them scripture. 

The Bible. It has the most contributions by the most prophets, and the most complete set of teachings, and continues to be my favorite scripture source. However, it is not complete. It refers to the BoM. It also says there will be additional prophecy by other witnesses such as the two witnesses of Rev 11. So, I am not quite sure of the purpose of your exercise.

I would agree with you on several of your points.  The bible is by far the most complete work with the most prophets, apostles and by far the most documentation on Christ himself in the gospels.  The bible also tells the creation story which is absent from the BOM. And seriously, the Book of Moses reads like Joseph copied and pasted it right out of Genesis and changed God to gods. The bible has been considered a literary masterpiece and a historically accurate book for hundreds of years. The bible also has the end times book of Revelation, which is absent from the other LDS sources. IMHO the bible is far superior to any of the other LDS works.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I would agree with you on several of your points.  The bible is by far the most complete work with the most prophets, apostles and by far the most documentation on Christ himself in the gospels.  The bible also tells the creation story which is absent from the BOM. And seriously, the Book of Moses reads like Joseph copied and pasted it right out of Genesis and changed God to gods. The bible has been considered a literary masterpiece and a historically accurate book for hundreds of years. The bible also has the end times book of Revelation, which is absent from the other LDS sources. IMHO the bible is far superior to any of the other LDS works.

Statements like "The bible also has the end times book of Revelation, which is absent from the other LDS sources" are silly.
I could say that D&C 132 has the best, most complete revelation on marriage and eternal families which is absent from other Christian sources and that makes the D&C superior.

Both statements are completely subjective.
And the Book of Moses is a corrected and supplemented version of Genesis - it should read like it was copied and pasted.  But the revelatory corrections are worth their weight in gold they provide so much insight.

The Bible is the word of God.  Nobody here will disagree with you on that.  But over millennia man has both influenced its contents and misinterpreted their meaning.  The same has happened to the Book of Mormon and the D&C.   All are of value in our learning about God.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I would agree with you on several of your points.  The bible is by far the most complete work with the most prophets, apostles and by far the most documentation on Christ himself in the gospels.  The bible also tells the creation story which is absent from the BOM. And seriously, the Book of Moses reads like Joseph copied and pasted it right out of Genesis and changed God to gods. The bible has been considered a literary masterpiece and a historically accurate book for hundreds of years. The bible also has the end times book of Revelation, which is absent from the other LDS sources. IMHO the bible is far superior to any of the other LDS works.

You're approaching this still as if God were dead to have His final words spoken.  LDS do not believe this.  Do you?

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I would agree with you on several of your points.  The bible is by far the most complete work with the most prophets, apostles and by far the most documentation on Christ himself in the gospels.  The bible also tells the creation story which is absent from the BOM. And seriously, the Book of Moses reads like Joseph copied and pasted it right out of Genesis and changed God to gods. The bible has been considered a literary masterpiece and a historically accurate book for hundreds of years. The bible also has the end times book of Revelation, which is absent from the other LDS sources. IMHO the bible is far superior to any of the other LDS works.

I agree that the Bible is more complete, but not "far superior." Scripture is scripture, and one scripture is not superior to another just because there is more of it. It may be fulfilled or no longer fully applicable, but that in itself can be extremely important. Showing all the prophecies fulfilled in the Bible goes to show there is a God who planned all this. He planned history, and knows what is going to happen. 
The Book of Mormon is entering this realm of prophecy now. I can think of several of its prophecies which have come true. For instance it mentions that the Church will be spread over all the earth, but will be few in number while the great whore held sway. 1 Nephi 14:12. This is a perfect prophecy of the present day Church despite Joseph Smith saying the Church would fill the earth. The Book of Mormon also makes a specific prophecy that the Gentiles would trample and scatter the Lamanites. This actually went into full swing only months after the Book of Mormon was published when under Andrew Jackson the US began a policy of disenfranchising the Natives - it became official policy and law. Many Natives lost their homes, and were scattered westward. There are more prophecies about to be fulfilled concerning the New Jerusalem, etc. The Book of Mormon is actually much more specific regarding certain biblical prophecies - leaving little room to misunderstand them.... even if they currently are. In that sense one might consider the Book of Mormon to be "superior." That is just a very subjective term.

P.S. I'm looking at some of the biggest darn snowflakes I think I have ever seen right now - 3+ inches wide. Just thought I'd mention that snowflake.

Edited April 28, 2017 by RevTestament

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The Bible is the word of God.  Nobody here will disagree with you on that.  But over millennia man has both influenced its contents and misinterpreted their meaning.  The same has happened to the Book of Mormon and the D&C.   All are of value in our learning about God.

How is something of value for study if you can't trust it? I constantly hear this on the message board, "the Bible is the word of God"...cough....cough.....(we don't really believe that).......What parts have been corrupted or changed or misinterpreted and why doesn't the LDS leadership either fix the problems or throw them out?

We know precisely where and how the BOM and D&C have been changed.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, snowflake said:

How is something of value for study if you can't trust it? I constantly hear this on the message board, "the Bible is the word of God"...cough....cough.....(we don't really believe that).......What parts have been corrupted or changed or misinterpreted and why doesn't the LDS leadership either fix the problems or throw them out?

We know precisely where and how the BOM and D&C have been changed.

The reason we believe we can trust the bible is because we believe God has put things in place so make it trustworthy.  

For example, we believe that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word of God will be established.  By adding the witness of the BOM (and other scriptures) to the witness of the Bible it provides a way to double-check (for lack of a better word) what the scriptures say.

Also, we believe that the Spirit can tell us the truth of all things and can help us to better understand those parts of the bible that might be confusing or incomplete because of translation issues.

[Jane_Doe]

12 minutes ago, snowflake said:

How is something of value for study if you can't trust it? I constantly hear this on the message board, "the Bible is the word of God"...cough....cough.....(we don't really believe that)......

Except we DO really believe that the Bible is the word of God.  It is the word of a LIVING God.  

12 minutes ago, snowflake said:

What parts have been corrupted or changed or misinterpreted and why doesn't the LDS leadership either fix the problems or throw them out?

We teach correct doctrine.  Correct interpretations, guiding by a living God who continues to speak to us.  Simply teaching Truth is much more effective means of conveying Truth.

[snowflake]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

You're approaching this still as if God were dead to have His final words spoken.  LDS do not believe this.  Do you?

I study the Bible daily and pray for wisdom in understanding and revelation of God's word, and I am rewarded with new understanding and insight into his word constantly through the Holy spirit. Jesus is alive and active in all of his believer's lives and I have put him as my Lord and King, I worship and talk to him daily in prayer. One comes to understand God through Jesus. I do believe that the Holy Bible is sufficient in everything with the inspiration of the Holy spirit.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I study the Bible daily and pray for wisdom in understanding and revelation of God's word, and I am rewarded with new understanding and insight into his word constantly through the Holy spirit. Jesus is alive and active in all of his believer's lives and I have put him as my Lord and King, I worship and talk to him daily in prayer. One comes to understand God through Jesus. I do believe that the Holy Bible is sufficient in everything with the inspiration of the Holy spirit.

So you believe a living God doesn't talk anymore-- that He's mute?

[Bob Crockett]

To Latter-day Saints "canon" means little more than what is bound in the quad. 

What is bound in the quad changes.  The recent iteration of the quad dropped the marginal notes to the KJV which, in my view, is as much a part of the KJV as the text itself.  There have been subtle changes to the text of the D&C, Book of Mormon and POGP.   There have been additions.  There have been things dropped wholesale.  

The footnotes are part of the quad. They change.  

Query whether the Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, and maps are part of the canon.  I think they are but of lesser weight.

 

Lots of things upon which we rely are not in the quad but likely more valuable than some things in the quad.  King Follett Discourse, various proclamations etc.  It is for that reason the "canon" does not govern us.  My opinion.  

Edited April 28, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I study the Bible daily and pray for wisdom in understanding and revelation of God's word, and I am rewarded with new understanding and insight into his word constantly through the Holy spirit. Jesus is alive and active in all of his believer's lives and I have put him as my Lord and King, I worship and talk to him daily in prayer. One comes to understand God through Jesus. I do believe that the Holy Bible is sufficient in everything with the inspiration of the Holy spirit.

 

39 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

So you believe a living God doesn't talk anymore-- that He's mute?

Worse than that.  It's not just that God doesn't talk, it's that he doesn't interact.
Not all scripture contains words of God, a lot of it contains God's actions.  If God acts, man records it, and that record is true, then it's scripture.
If God answers your prayer and you record that answer in a journal your journal is now scripture.  Because it is a record of God.

To say that the Bible is the only scripture is to say that God no longer answers us.

[snowflake]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To say that the Bible is the only scripture is to say that God no longer answers us.

When Christ ascended, he had the Apostles and believers wait for the comforter,  who has been here on the earth since his departure. We communicate with God through Jesus and the comforter. Do you honestly believe the LDS are the only group privy to the Holy Spirit and the only group who can communicate with God?

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, snowflake said:

When Christ ascended, he had the Apostles and believers wait for the comforter,  who has been here on the earth since his departure. We communicate with God through Jesus and the comforter. Do you honestly believe the LDS are the only group privy to the Holy Spirit and the only group who can communicate with God?

No, I don't believe that.
And you are right, we communicate with God through Jesus and the Holy Ghost/1st Comforter.

And what do we call record of those communications?
Scripture.  The D&C is a record primarily of Joseph Smith's communications with God through the Holy Ghost and our Savior.
The Book of Mormon is a record of God's communications with additional prophets.

Do you think those in the currently formatted Bible were the only ones with the right to publish a record of their communications with God?

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, snowflake said:

When Christ ascended, he had the Apostles and believers wait for the comforter,  who has been here on the earth since his departure. We communicate with God through Jesus and the comforter. 

And God continued to give revelation and new scripture after the Ascension (hence majority of the NT).  

9 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Do you honestly believe the LDS are the only group privy to the Holy Spirit and the only group who can communicate with God?

No.

But I find very few groups that believe God DOES still communicate and give scripture.  Vast majority believe in a closed canon from a seemingly dead and/or mute idea of deity.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[snowflake]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

And God continued to give revelation and new scripture after the Ascension (hence majority of the NT).  

From direct observers of the risen Lord through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, sure. Men who were martyred for their testimony of Jesus. 

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

But I find very few groups that believe God DOES still communicate and give scripture.  Vast majority believe in a closed canon from a seemingly dead and/or mute idea of deity.

When was the last time the LDS announced new scripture? Not even the manifesto is considered scripture correct? Christopher Namelka has claimed to have translated the sealed portion, his followers believe in an open cannon and communication with God, do you consider that scripture?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, snowflake said:

From direct observers of the risen Lord through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, sure. Men who were martyred for their testimony of Jesus. 

When was the last time the LDS announced new scripture? Not even the manifesto is considered scripture correct? Christopher Namelka has claimed to have translated the sealed portion, his followers believe in an open cannon and communication with God, do you consider that scripture?

Do you believe that it is only those few men who are capable of being 'direct observers of the risen Lord' and being martyred for their testimony?

To the second question-not everything that people say is scripture is scripture.  That's not what anyone is saying.   There's a difference between stating "I don't believe that book is scripture" to stating "I don't believe there can be any more scripture."  

There is no reason, and certainly nothing in the bible, that prohibits or teaches against God continuing to interact with His people, and them writing that interaction down, after the original apostles died.  

[snowflake]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, I don't believe that.
And you are right, we communicate with God through Jesus and the Holy Ghost/1st Comforter.

And what do we call record of those communications?
Scripture.  The D&C is a record primarily of Joseph Smith's communications with God through the Holy Ghost and our Savior.
The Book of Mormon is a record of God's communications with additional prophets.

Do you think those in the currently formatted Bible were the only ones with the right to publish a record of their communications with God?

When I look at the BOM it is the one canonized LDS publication that I would consider might be from God (at one time I considered it possible).  It really doesn't stray that far from the Bible IMHO, especially when comparing the original BOM produced by the church before the major doctrinal changes.  

The bible has been the Christian's standard since the first century, so when one comes along almost 1700 years after the fact and makes claims that don't agree with what has been considered scripture by the Christians, I find that extremely suspect.  The BOA, D&C and LDS prophets teach doctrine contradictory to the Prophets and Apostles in Bible. Joseph claimed that those contradictions are due to "the bible being corrupted by man". This is where I have my biggest problem with the LDS church. Joseph came along after the fact and starts making claims that are unbiblical, I simply don't accept his claims because they pervert the biblical message.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, snowflake said:

When I look at the BOM it is the one canonized LDS publication that I would consider might be from God (at one time I considered it possible).  It really doesn't stray that far from the Bible IMHO, especially when comparing the original BOM produced by the church before the major doctrinal changes.  

The bible has been the Christian's standard since the first century, so when one comes along almost 1700 years after the fact and makes claims that don't agree with what has been considered scripture by the Christians, I find that extremely suspect.  The BOA, D&C and LDS prophets teach doctrine contradictory to the Prophets and Apostles in Bible. Joseph claimed that those contradictions are due to "the bible being corrupted by man". This is where I have my biggest problem with the LDS church. Joseph came along after the fact and starts making claims that are unbiblical, I simply don't accept his claims because they pervert the biblical message.

I see no real contradictions.
What you mean is they contradict traditional interpretation of the Bible.  I find Joseph's claims to be completely Biblical.  Men had just spent the previous 1800 years interpreting the Bible incorrectly.

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

I would agree with you on several of your points.  The bible is by far the most complete work with the most prophets, apostles and by far the most documentation on Christ himself in the gospels.  The bible also tells the creation story which is absent from the BOM. And seriously, the Book of Moses reads like Joseph copied and pasted it right out of Genesis and changed God to gods. The bible has been considered a literary masterpiece and a historically accurate book for hundreds of years. The bible also has the end times book of Revelation, which is absent from the other LDS sources. IMHO the bible is far superior to any of the other LDS works.

So?  No offense but you seem rather ignorant of the Bible itself.  So what does it matter if it's complete or something?  Why not consider all that God has given work it in you and be happy?  Rather than try and restrict God?  Why not accept that God has no intention of giving some complete version of all we need to know written down neatly for us to read?  I simply wouldn't agree that that's God's intention. 

[snowflake]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you believe that it is only those few men who are capable of being 'direct observers of the risen Lord' and being martyred for their testimony?

To the second question-not everything that people say is scripture is scripture.  That's not what anyone is saying.   There's a difference between stating "I don't believe that book is scripture" to stating "I don't believe there can be any more scripture."  

There is no reason, and certainly nothing in the bible, that prohibits or teaches against God continuing to interact with His people, and them writing that interaction down, after the original apostles died.  

Men throughout history have been martyred for their testimony of Jesus, since the Apostles in the first century.

I don't believe Joseph's story about being a direct observer of the risen Lord, and I'm not convinced he was martyred, (although he was undoubtedly unjustly murdered).

I do not agree with your statement that God quit interacting with his people, believers have communicated with him through Jesus and the Holy Spirit since the first century. As I understand it, it is the LDS stance is that God did not communicate with man do that for almost 1700 years. The LDS appear to deny Jesus and scripture when they convince themselves of the "great apostasy". Matt 16:

¹⁸ And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

 

[snowflake]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I see no real contradictions.
What you mean is they contradict traditional interpretation of the Bible.  I find Joseph's claims to be completely Biblical.  Men had just spent the previous 1800 years interpreting the Bible incorrectly.

Of course you don't see any real contradictions, you're LDS.....lol.  For 1900 years man had it wrong until Joseph came along....OK. Was it the biblical text itself that was wrong or the interpretation of the text that was wrong?  

[snowflake]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So?  No offense but you seem rather ignorant of the Bible itself.  So what does it matter if it's complete or something?  Why not consider all that God has given work it in you and be happy?  Rather than try and restrict God?  Why not accept that God has no intention of giving some complete version of all we need to know written down neatly for us to read?  I simply wouldn't agree that that's God's intention. 

Should I include the Koran and Hadith, the Vedas and the Sealed Portion as God's given work too?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Of course you don't see any real contradictions, you're LDS.....lol.  For 1900 years man had it wrong until Joseph came along....OK. Was it the biblical text itself that was wrong or the interpretation of the text that was wrong?

The interpretation of course.
The Trinity doctrine didn't even appear in Christ or the Apostles lifetime and wasn't formally accepted until even later.  There is zero evidence that Christ or the Apostles either taught or believed what later became the Trinity.
So where did it come from?  Misinterpreting the words of the Apostles in the Bible.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Men throughout history have been martyred for their testimony of Jesus, since the Apostles in the first century.

I don't believe Joseph's story about being a direct observer of the risen Lord, and I'm not convinced he was martyred, (although he was undoubtedly unjustly murdered).

That's a different question than what we are discussing though.  

Quote

I do not agree with your statement that God quit interacting with his people, believers have communicated with him through Jesus and the Holy Spirit since the first century.

I agree.  But I can point to other scriptures to support my beliefs.  Where is your evidence?

Quote

As I understand it, it is the LDS stance is that God did not communicate with man do that for almost 1700 years. The LDS appear to deny Jesus and scripture when they convince themselves of the "great apostasy". Matt 16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If the LDS church is God's church, that means that the gates of hell did not prevail against it.  

To use an example,-Jesus died. Death prevailed for a time, but because of His resurrection, it did not ultimately prevail.   It is completely accurate to say, of Jesus that death did not prevail against Him, even though He did actually die.

The same can be said for Christ's church.  Losing a battle is not the same thing as losing the war.